CORE OPTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. , No. 22-120 (Fed. Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-120 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 04/05/2022 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ CORE OPTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., Defendant-Petitioner ______________________ 2022-120 ______________________ On Petition for Permission to Appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 3:21-cv02428-VC, Judge Vince Chhabria. ______________________ ON PETITION ______________________ Before PROST, REYNA and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges. CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judge. ORDER Juniper Networks, Inc. petitions for permission to appeal from an interlocutory order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denying Juniper’s motion to dismiss, which the district court Case: 22-120 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 04/05/2022 2 CORE OPTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. certified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Core Optical Technologies, LLC opposes the petition. Under § 1292(b), a district court may certify that an order that is not otherwise appealable is one involving a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and for which an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Ultimately, this court must exercise its own discretion in deciding whether to grant permission to appeal an interlocutory order. See In re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Pat. Litig., 903 F.2d 822, 822 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, we conclude that we should not permit an interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition for permission to appeal is denied. FOR THE COURT April 5, 2022 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.